french defence

I discussed the french defence with one from my club. I think french defence should be better for white but he doesn't agree he thinks it should be better for black.
I think I heard Roman on a video say that he did not believe in the french defence but I do not know if he meant for black or white. I think he meant for black.

I know it is kind of hard to tell if an opening is good or bad, but which side should have the advantage with best play in french defench, white or black.

In the French, as all other standard, or traditional defences, white can hope to gain a small advantage, while black can hope to equalize.

That might sound counterintuitive, but that´s the one true evaluation.

There is no main-line opening played at the highest levels that is strictly better for Black or strictly better for White. Both sides will have imbalances to build on.

I especially hate it when people think "Oh, the  Open Sicilian is better for Black, I'll play an Anti." I mean come on, in this case it is in fact slightly better for Black and the reasoning doesn't justify playing an Anti. Better reasoning is that I don't want to play someone completely booked up and/or I don't have much time, etc.

Only a few reasonable openings besides gambits can be classified as better for white or black like Semi-Slav Triangle, Noteboom is thought to be better/easier for Black to play.

Otherwise, white should retain a slight advantage in main line stuff and Black plays to equalize like doze said

Well, the French defense was the most troublesome reply to 1. e4 for Bobby Fischer.

Computers tend to like the main lines of the French for black. Top-level engines like Rybka have used it in computer tournaments with great success. In practice though, black needs to be extra-careful about white's kingside attack, or he'll be crushed.

What I personally don't like about the French (as black) is how white controls the direction of the game: A lower-rated player will probably choose to play the drawish exchange variation, while a higher-rated player would most likely opt for a complicated line.

One of the most bizarre comments I've read.  I don't know what else to say.

@wafflemaster why? I got 3 helpful replies that helps me to analyze the french more deeply. So it cannot be that bizzare.
Since I believe GM Roman said he did not believe in the french it is a valid question.
to help me understand this more deeply.

Fair enough.

From my POV, two centuries of GM strength players employing the French and never questioning that it gave chances for both sides stunted my response and I wasn't able to give a constructive comment.

I have heard some comments about Roman's opening analysis that he leaves out some critical lines if they don't agree with what he's trying to say.

Also, the pure (from my POV) absurdity to claim an advantage for one side after 1.e4 e6 makes me think that the Roman quote was taken out of context.  Does he mean a specific line?  Does he mean it's impractical for club players to try and employ with success?  The French has been played at very high levels both OTB and in correspondence so I really don't know what to say about the Roman's comment.

Lastly, that two club players would try to comment "the French is good for _____" is equally absurd.  No offense of course, I would have myself committed if I started having similar opinions... and I'm sure if I asked anyone in my club to evaluate the position after 1.e4 e6 as equal, better for white, or better for black, I'd either get a detailed response about how certain lines for certain players are such and such or, more likely, they'd just look at me as if waiting for the punchline...

When I returned to chess in 2009 after a six year long hiatus from tournament play, I found myself not comfortable with my sicilians. So what to do then? For me it was a process (still in progress), but slowly I realized that the french defence was for me a good choice based on one simple fact: It never fails to offer me counterplay, which is what you always strive for with the black pieces. There is nothing worse (imho) than a position where you can only sit and wait (like some variations of the Cambridge Springs).

As to your question, which side should have the advantage with best play - I think it's irrelevant. It's a sound opening which have stood the test of time, and preferences towards this and that type of positions varies from player to player.The better player usually wins, but if the better player doesn't know your opening well, or is unfamiliar with the structures arising, then you might level the gap in strength to a certain degree.

Hi Bobby!

I think it is very difficult to play the French for the White player because the white player need to know a ton of theory. Since a lower rated player usually do not know much theory I think a well prepared Black player will do well at lower rated levels.

A master level White usually know more theory and therefore do better.

Personally I have a lot of problems playing white in the French. It is clearly one of those openings that I need to study deeper. Sometimes I avoid the French by playing a different setup like the King Indian Attack, but I dont think this gives advantage for White, but it might take Black away from his favorithe lines.

The problem bacically is that the Black player can play French in 100% of his games against 1.e4. But White 1.e4 players perhaps only face the French in 5% of his games and therefore do not have so much experience with the opening as the Black player.